To our collection of independent British political bloggers, Max Farquar has added a further twenty four. With another twelve below, we are well on our way to the first hundred-mark:

View full article here

Rating is difficult one Richard. There are some excellent bloggers who only post occasionally and have a very loyal following, yet they are hard to find because they don't achieve high visitor numbers, plus they have no real desire to promote themselves.

I dislike Iain Dale's idea of bloggers voting for each because it's open to abuse. Like it or not there are cliques in the blogosphere and they tend to distort results.

Bloggers who encourage debate should be credited in some way, but I would say that wouldn't I? Although it's enjoyable responding to individual comments, it is time consuming and I notice many more are now interacting with their readers. About time too. I've given up commenting on blogs when it's never acknowledged even with a 'Thanks'.

Can you explain the 'star system' please? Rather confused here but that's nothing unusual.

I like the 'best of' idea as I don't have time to read more than a small handful of blogs regularly, even less if I spend time composing a comment, and available time dwindles to nil if I follow a long thread on here, for example.

I always meant to get round to learning what an RSS feed is as I've a vague idea I can add a list of sites and then as new posts appear the titles get sent, somehow, to my email but it's one more thing I've never got around to. I did try something called 'Pulse' on my phone at one point which sounded good in theory but in reality I never used it.

There's so much other stuff that I've really no idea what it is nor any real inclination to find out about - diggit, reddit, basically all those buttons floating about on the periphery.

I do quite like the thumbs up / thumbs down button some sites use.

I've now added a bit to the post, as follows: Frequency seems easiest to rank, say: five stars for multiple entries per day; four stars for at least five daily entries in a week; three stars for at least weekly; two stars for at least monthly, and one star for less frequent.

You could thus have a ranking (as a very tentative idea) that looked like this:

Writing: *****
Presentation: *****
Frequency: *****
Specialism: ACKX (random - the letters have no meaning in this example)

Writing could be hellish difficult to judge on a subjective level, but there are simple, technical issues that could possibly be addressed, such as spelling, paragraph length ... and even readability (Fog Index).

This is all very tentative ... I'm not absolutely sure it is a good idea ... herding cats, etc ... but I am impressed by the good quality of writing out there, which is not recognised, while the claque gets all the attention. Whatever else, it must be bottom-up ... a co-operative, self managed, rather than a top-down, ego-driven Dale-type operation.

The trouble is that "best" is very subjective ... one person's "best" is another's "shite". As far as possible, therefore, it seems most appropriate to concentrate on technical aspects of ranking ... if that is possible, because there will always be a level of subjectivity in some categories.

I'm already expanding my personal blog roll greatly through this exercise, so in that sense it's succeeding. Some kind of ranking would be useful particularly for frequency. On EUref I know it is worth a daily visit but on others it seems very much a fits and starts thing so while I like the quality of the writing, the opinion or the information it would be good to know if it's something to check everyday or every once in while.

I don't know if the idea of identifying specialisms might help ... or might even encourage some bloggers to specialise, playing to their own strengths. Between us, I am sure we would put up more, better informed specialists than the MSM.

You're right that 'best of' lists aren't really the answer. The two sites I visit that do use them, Drudge Report, which is basically one big 'best of', and Guido Fawkes, I rarely click through, couple of times a week at the most.

From a readers point of view it's difficult to see an ideal solution beyond blog rolls and links in threads. The problem with blog rolls is that they can be overwhelming once they start growing beyond a dozen or so (and you're only seeing the last item posted), and links in threads are a manual process so not ideal, as well as extra work for the author.

There is no question that links in threads are the best way of promoting fellow bloggers, and they can add value by bringing in another voice. I'm doing my best to add links where appropriate, but you are right ... it is extra work. Nonetheless, it is an important part of blogging. Interestingly, I never visit Guido ... he has never once (that I can recall) linked to EURef, so I insist on returning the compliment and ignore him completely.

Therein lies the rub Richard. I've done a special 'super seven blogs' or equivalent for over two years now, giving links to many bloggers with particular emphasis on Scottish bloggers. With the exception of one or two there were no reciprocal links and I've now given up mentioning them. It's bad enough they never acknowledge comments on their blog.

How do you judge writing? Grammar, spelling or the length of essays? Some folk don't want to read lengthy essays but just want to listen to a brief opinion. Good writing should always be recognised of course.

Bloggers who post daily perhaps should be considered because it's not an easy job to keep a constant like that as one individual.

I'm sitting on the fence here as you can tell. It's ok though, the spike hasn't quite penetrated.

You do wonder sometimes ... but I think a blog about blogging gives the opportunity to air these issues .. I'm minded to do a piece tomorrow, picking up your comments.